Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 851 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 421 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 85 | 50.51 ± 13.04 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74) | 50.74 ± 12.94 (28 - 73) | 0.873 |
gender | 85 | 0.519 | |||
f | 60 (71%) | 29 (67%) | 31 (74%) | ||
m | 25 (29%) | 14 (33%) | 11 (26%) | ||
occupation | 85 | 0.894 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 9 (11%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (7.1%) | 3 (7.0%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
other | 2 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.8%) | ||
part_time | 15 (18%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (19%) | ||
retired | 21 (25%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | 2 (4.8%) | ||
student | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
unemploy | 23 (27%) | 13 (30%) | 10 (24%) | ||
marital | 85 | 0.692 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
divore | 10 (12%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 21 (25%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
none | 46 (54%) | 22 (51%) | 24 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.8%) | ||
edu | 85 | 0.843 | |||
bachelor | 24 (28%) | 9 (21%) | 15 (36%) | ||
diploma | 18 (21%) | 11 (26%) | 7 (17%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (8.2%) | 4 (9.3%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.9%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (12%) | 6 (14%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 16 (19%) | 8 (19%) | 8 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
fam_income | 85 | 0.908 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.9%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.9%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | ||
20001_above | 14 (16%) | 7 (16%) | 7 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 13 (15%) | 9 (21%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | 6 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (11%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (8.2%) | 3 (7.0%) | 4 (9.5%) | ||
below_2000 | 12 (14%) | 6 (14%) | 6 (14%) | ||
medication | 85 | 75 (88%) | 39 (91%) | 36 (86%) | 0.520 |
onset_duration | 85 | 15.28 ± 10.96 (0 - 56) | 16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56) | 13.88 ± 9.66 (0 - 35) | 0.246 |
onset_age | 85 | 35.23 ± 14.02 (14 - 64) | 33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58) | 36.86 ± 15.13 (15 - 64) | 0.291 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 851 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 421 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 85 | 3.08 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 0.934 |
recovery_stage_b | 85 | 18.01 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23) | 18.17 ± 2.55 (13 - 23) | 0.597 |
ras_confidence | 85 | 30.19 ± 4.75 (19 - 43) | 29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40) | 30.76 ± 5.17 (20 - 43) | 0.274 |
ras_willingness | 85 | 12.24 ± 1.95 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15) | 12.40 ± 2.04 (7 - 15) | 0.432 |
ras_goal | 85 | 17.60 ± 2.86 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24) | 17.71 ± 2.94 (12 - 24) | 0.718 |
ras_reliance | 85 | 13.06 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18) | 13.14 ± 3.00 (8 - 20) | 0.786 |
ras_domination | 85 | 9.93 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15) | 9.43 ± 2.33 (3 - 14) | 0.050 |
symptom | 85 | 30.42 ± 9.81 (14 - 56) | 31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55) | 28.86 ± 9.57 (15 - 56) | 0.147 |
slof_work | 85 | 22.84 ± 4.88 (10 - 30) | 22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30) | 23.14 ± 5.31 (10 - 30) | 0.569 |
slof_relationship | 85 | 25.82 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35) | 26.55 ± 5.87 (11 - 35) | 0.268 |
satisfaction | 85 | 20.53 ± 6.71 (5 - 32) | 18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29) | 22.24 ± 6.57 (5 - 32) | 0.019 |
mhc_emotional | 85 | 11.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17) | 11.74 ± 4.03 (4 - 18) | 0.195 |
mhc_social | 85 | 15.04 ± 5.26 (6 - 30) | 15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30) | 14.93 ± 5.33 (6 - 26) | 0.855 |
mhc_psychological | 85 | 22.15 ± 5.89 (6 - 36) | 21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36) | 22.76 ± 6.34 (6 - 36) | 0.349 |
resilisnce | 85 | 16.67 ± 4.49 (6 - 27) | 16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24) | 17.07 ± 4.83 (7 - 27) | 0.420 |
social_provision | 85 | 13.71 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20) | 14.17 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.143 |
els_value_living | 85 | 17.13 ± 2.91 (5 - 25) | 16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22) | 17.76 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.047 |
els_life_fulfill | 85 | 12.66 ± 3.29 (4 - 20) | 11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.81 ± 3.16 (4 - 20) | 0.001 |
els | 85 | 29.79 ± 5.61 (9 - 45) | 28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36) | 31.57 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 0.003 |
social_connect | 85 | 26.91 ± 9.22 (8 - 48) | 27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45) | 25.95 ± 10.14 (8 - 48) | 0.349 |
shs_agency | 85 | 14.58 ± 4.77 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 15.43 ± 5.10 (3 - 24) | 0.104 |
shs_pathway | 85 | 16.56 ± 3.90 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24) | 17.12 ± 4.06 (4 - 23) | 0.197 |
shs | 85 | 31.14 ± 8.21 (7 - 47) | 29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45) | 32.55 ± 8.59 (7 - 47) | 0.119 |
esteem | 85 | 12.69 ± 1.53 (10 - 18) | 12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18) | 12.45 ± 1.45 (10 - 16) | 0.150 |
mlq_search | 85 | 15.01 ± 3.25 (3 - 21) | 14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21) | 15.17 ± 3.46 (3 - 21) | 0.667 |
mlq_presence | 85 | 13.54 ± 4.10 (3 - 21) | 13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21) | 13.76 ± 4.53 (3 - 21) | 0.627 |
mlq | 85 | 28.55 ± 6.53 (6 - 42) | 28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40) | 28.93 ± 7.21 (6 - 42) | 0.603 |
empower | 85 | 19.47 ± 4.05 (6 - 28) | 18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24) | 20.00 ± 4.54 (6 - 28) | 0.236 |
ismi_resistance | 85 | 14.78 ± 2.61 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19) | 15.14 ± 2.97 (5 - 20) | 0.202 |
ismi_discrimation | 85 | 11.46 ± 3.14 (5 - 19) | 12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19) | 10.48 ± 3.16 (5 - 19) | 0.004 |
sss_affective | 85 | 10.04 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.50 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 0.195 |
sss_behavior | 85 | 9.67 ± 3.98 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.93 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 0.089 |
sss_cognitive | 85 | 8.24 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 7.81 ± 3.59 (3 - 18) | 0.308 |
sss | 85 | 27.94 ± 10.68 (9 - 54) | 29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 26.24 ± 10.72 (9 - 54) | 0.147 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.09 | 0.181 | 2.74, 3.45 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.022 | 0.258 | -0.527, 0.484 | 0.933 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.174 | 0.280 | -0.375, 0.722 | 0.537 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.182 | 0.396 | -0.595, 0.959 | 0.647 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.409 | 17.1, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.582 | -0.835, 1.45 | 0.600 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.339 | 0.593 | -1.50, 0.824 | 0.570 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.779 | 0.839 | -0.866, 2.42 | 0.357 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.755 | 28.1, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.13 | 1.074 | -0.971, 3.24 | 0.294 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.392 | 0.805 | -1.19, 1.97 | 0.628 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.383 | 1.139 | -1.85, 2.61 | 0.738 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.304 | 11.5, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.335 | 0.432 | -0.512, 1.18 | 0.440 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.674 | 0.317 | -1.29, -0.053 | 0.039 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.559 | 0.448 | -0.319, 1.44 | 0.219 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.460 | 16.6, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.226 | 0.654 | -1.06, 1.51 | 0.730 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.917 | 0.540 | -1.97, 0.141 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.59 | 0.764 | 0.097, 3.09 | 0.042 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.418 | 12.2, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.166 | 0.595 | -0.999, 1.33 | 0.781 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.452 | 0.407 | -0.344, 1.25 | 0.272 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.590 | 0.575 | -0.537, 1.72 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.346 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.990 | 0.493 | -1.96, -0.024 | 0.047 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.592 | 0.465 | -1.50, 0.320 | 0.210 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.659 | 0.184, 2.77 | 0.030 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 32.0 | 1.484 | 29.0, 34.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.10 | 2.111 | -7.23, 1.04 | 0.146 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.043 | 1.164 | -2.32, 2.24 | 0.971 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.565 | 1.647 | -3.79, 2.66 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.748 | 21.1, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.608 | 1.064 | -1.48, 2.69 | 0.569 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.698 | 0.619 | -1.91, 0.515 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.510 | 0.875 | -2.22, 1.21 | 0.564 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.892 | 23.4, 26.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.43 | 1.269 | -1.05, 3.92 | 0.262 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.947 | 0.888 | -2.69, 0.793 | 0.292 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.526 | 1.256 | -1.94, 2.99 | 0.678 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 1.030 | 16.8, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.38 | 1.465 | 0.506, 6.25 | 0.023 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.865 | 1.153 | -1.39, 3.12 | 0.457 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.37 | 1.631 | -4.57, 1.83 | 0.405 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.569 | 9.56, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.06 | 0.810 | -0.523, 2.65 | 0.192 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.491 | 0.530 | -0.547, 1.53 | 0.359 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 0.749 | -2.68, 0.262 | 0.115 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.832 | 13.5, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.211 | 1.184 | -2.53, 2.11 | 0.859 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.09 | 0.882 | -0.640, 2.82 | 0.224 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.66 | 1.248 | -4.11, 0.784 | 0.190 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.939 | 19.7, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.20 | 1.336 | -1.42, 3.82 | 0.370 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.698 | 1.009 | -1.28, 2.68 | 0.493 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.56 | 1.428 | -4.36, 1.24 | 0.281 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.659 | 15.0, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.792 | 0.937 | -1.04, 2.63 | 0.400 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.178 | 0.721 | -1.23, 1.59 | 0.806 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.510 | 1.020 | -1.49, 2.51 | 0.619 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.444 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.911 | 0.632 | -0.327, 2.15 | 0.152 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.919 | 0.539 | -1.98, 0.138 | 0.094 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.824 | 0.763 | -0.671, 2.32 | 0.285 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.441 | 15.6, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.25 | 0.628 | 0.020, 2.48 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.312 | 0.450 | -0.571, 1.19 | 0.492 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.082 | 0.637 | -1.33, 1.17 | 0.898 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.462 | 10.6, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 0.657 | 0.987, 3.56 | 0.001 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.992 | 0.478 | 0.056, 1.93 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.00 | 0.676 | -2.33, 0.320 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.105 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.813 | 26.5, 29.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.52 | 1.157 | 1.26, 5.79 | 0.003 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.26 | 0.762 | -0.237, 2.75 | 0.106 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 1.078 | -3.14, 1.09 | 0.346 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.089 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.409 | 25.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.88 | 2.004 | -5.81, 2.04 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.766 | 1.145 | -1.48, 3.01 | 0.507 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.24 | 1.620 | -4.42, 1.94 | 0.448 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.725 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.68 | 1.032 | -0.338, 3.71 | 0.106 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.316 | 0.764 | -1.18, 1.81 | 0.681 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 1.080 | -1.96, 2.28 | 0.883 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.593 | 14.9, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 0.844 | -0.558, 2.75 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.394 | 0.593 | -0.768, 1.56 | 0.510 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.637 | 0.838 | -2.28, 1.01 | 0.452 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.240 | 27.3, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.78 | 1.764 | -0.677, 6.24 | 0.118 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.707 | 1.234 | -1.71, 3.13 | 0.569 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.455 | 1.745 | -3.88, 2.97 | 0.795 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.218 | 12.5, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.478 | 0.310 | -1.09, 0.130 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.106 | 0.348 | -0.577, 0.789 | 0.763 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.195 | 0.493 | -0.772, 1.16 | 0.695 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.504 | 13.9, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.716 | -1.10, 1.71 | 0.670 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.403 | 0.646 | -1.67, 0.864 | 0.536 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.259 | 0.915 | -1.53, 2.05 | 0.778 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.615 | 12.1, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.436 | 0.874 | -1.28, 2.15 | 0.619 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.052 | 0.728 | -1.48, 1.38 | 0.943 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.037 | 1.030 | -2.06, 1.98 | 0.971 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.010 | 26.2, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.743 | 1.437 | -2.07, 3.56 | 0.607 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.450 | 1.234 | -2.87, 1.97 | 0.717 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.210 | 1.746 | -3.21, 3.63 | 0.905 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.603 | 17.8, 20.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.858 | -0.634, 2.73 | 0.225 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.224 | 0.571 | -1.34, 0.895 | 0.697 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.426 | 0.808 | -2.01, 1.16 | 0.600 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.377 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.724 | 0.536 | -0.326, 1.77 | 0.179 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.123 | 0.537 | -0.930, 1.18 | 0.820 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.363 | 0.760 | -1.85, 1.13 | 0.635 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.469 | 11.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.94 | 0.667 | -3.25, -0.635 | 0.004 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.586 | 0.530 | -1.62, 0.453 | 0.274 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.694 | 0.750 | -0.776, 2.16 | 0.359 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.077 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.553 | 9.47, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.06 | 0.786 | -2.60, 0.483 | 0.182 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.194 | 0.506 | -0.798, 1.19 | 0.704 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.20 | 0.716 | -2.60, 0.207 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.578 | 9.26, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.47 | 0.822 | -3.08, 0.145 | 0.078 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.285 | 0.617 | -1.49, 0.925 | 0.647 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.566 | 0.873 | -2.28, 1.14 | 0.520 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.65 | 0.568 | 7.54, 9.76 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.842 | 0.807 | -2.42, 0.741 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.993 | 0.509 | -0.004, 1.99 | 0.057 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.92 | 0.720 | -3.33, -0.505 | 0.011 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.578 | 26.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.37 | 2.245 | -7.77, 1.03 | 0.137 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.999 | 1.319 | -1.59, 3.58 | 0.453 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.74 | 1.866 | -7.40, -0.083 | 0.051 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(119) = 17.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48], t(119) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.72], t(119) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.96], t(119) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.06, 18.66], t(119) = 43.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.45], t(119) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.82], t(119) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.42], t(119) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.11], t(119) = 39.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.97, 3.24], t(119) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.97], t(119) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.61], t(119) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.66], t(119) = 39.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(119) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.05], t(119) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.44], t(119) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.59, 18.39], t(119) = 38.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.51], t(119) = 0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.14], t(119) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [0.10, 3.09], t(119) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [0.03, 1.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(119) = 31.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(119) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.25], t(119) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.72], t(119) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(119) = 30.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.96, -0.02], t(119) = -2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.32], t(119) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [0.18, 2.77], t(119) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.08, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(119) = 21.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.10, 95% CI [-7.23, 1.04], t(119) = -1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.24], t(119) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -4.32e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-3.79, 2.66], t(119) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(119) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.69], t(119) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(119) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.22, 1.21], t(119) = -0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.37, 26.86], t(119) = 28.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.05, 3.92], t(119) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.79], t(119) = -1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.99], t(119) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.84, 20.88], t(119) = 18.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [0.51, 6.25], t(119) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.39, 3.12], t(119) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.83], t(119) = -0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(119) = 18.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.65], t(119) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(119) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.26], t(119) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.51, 16.77], t(119) = 18.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.53, 2.11], t(119) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.82], t(119) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.11, 0.78], t(119) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.72, 23.40], t(119) = 22.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.82], t(119) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.68], t(119) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.36, 1.24], t(119) = -1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.99, 17.57], t(119) = 24.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.63], t(119) = 0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(119) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.51], t(119) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.13], t(119) = 29.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.15], t(119) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.14], t(119) = -1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.32], t(119) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.65, 17.38], t(119) = 37.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.02, 2.48], t(119) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [6.65e-03, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.19], t(119) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.17], t(119) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.63, 12.44], t(119) = 24.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [0.99, 3.56], t(119) = 3.46, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.31, 1.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.06, 1.93], t(119) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.32], t(119) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.45, 29.64], t(119) = 34.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.26, 5.79], t(119) = 3.05, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.23, 1.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.75], t(119) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.14, 1.09], t(119) = -0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.08, 30.60], t(119) = 19.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-5.81, 2.04], t(119) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.01], t(119) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-4.42, 1.94], t(119) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.32, 15.17], t(119) = 18.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.71], t(119) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.81], t(119) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.28], t(119) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.86, 17.19], t(119) = 27.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.75], t(119) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.56], t(119) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.01], t(119) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.34, 32.20], t(119) = 24.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.78, 95% CI [-0.68, 6.24], t(119) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.71, 3.13], t(119) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.97], t(119) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.50, 13.36], t(119) = 59.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.13], t(119) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.79], t(119) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.16], t(119) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.87, 15.85], t(119) = 29.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.71], t(119) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.67, 0.86], t(119) = -0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.05], t(119) = 0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.12, 14.53], t(119) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.15], t(119) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.38], t(119) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.98], t(119) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -9.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.17], t(119) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.07, 3.56], t(119) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.87, 1.97], t(119) = -0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.63], t(119) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.77, 20.13], t(119) = 31.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.73], t(119) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.90], t(119) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.16], t(119) = -0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.68, 15.16], t(119) = 38.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.77], t(119) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.18], t(119) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.13], t(119) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(119) = 26.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.94, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.63], t(119) = -2.91, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.45], t(119) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.16], t(119) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.47, 11.64], t(119) = 19.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.48], t(119) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.19], t(119) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.21], t(119) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(119) = 17.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.14], t(119) = -1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.92], t(119) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.14], t(119) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.76], t(119) = 15.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.74], t(119) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-3.83e-03, 1.99], t(119) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.02e-03, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.33, -0.51], t(119) = -2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.51, 32.70], t(119) = 18.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.77, 1.03], t(119) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.58], t(119) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.74, 95% CI [-7.40, -0.08], t(119) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.70, -7.85e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 397.635 | 406.120 | -195.818 | 391.635 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 401.620 | 418.590 | -194.810 | 389.620 | 2.015 | 3 | 0.569 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 597.482 | 605.966 | -295.741 | 591.482 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 601.600 | 618.570 | -294.800 | 589.600 | 1.881 | 3 | 0.597 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 730.714 | 739.199 | -362.357 | 724.714 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 734.065 | 751.035 | -361.033 | 722.065 | 2.648 | 3 | 0.449 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 504.591 | 513.076 | -249.295 | 498.591 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 504.712 | 521.682 | -246.356 | 492.712 | 5.879 | 3 | 0.118 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 616.381 | 624.866 | -305.191 | 610.381 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 616.836 | 633.806 | -302.418 | 604.836 | 5.545 | 3 | 0.136 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 581.537 | 590.022 | -287.768 | 575.537 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 579.490 | 596.460 | -283.745 | 567.490 | 8.047 | 3 | 0.045 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 556.091 | 564.576 | -275.045 | 550.091 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 555.305 | 572.275 | -271.652 | 543.305 | 6.786 | 3 | 0.079 |
symptom | null | 3 | 876.710 | 885.195 | -435.355 | 870.710 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 879.938 | 896.908 | -433.969 | 867.938 | 2.773 | 3 | 0.428 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 711.974 | 720.459 | -352.987 | 705.974 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 712.730 | 729.700 | -350.365 | 700.730 | 5.245 | 3 | 0.155 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 767.683 | 776.168 | -380.842 | 761.683 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 770.653 | 787.623 | -379.326 | 758.653 | 3.030 | 3 | 0.387 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 814.587 | 823.072 | -404.293 | 808.587 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 815.168 | 832.138 | -401.584 | 803.168 | 5.419 | 3 | 0.144 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 651.033 | 659.518 | -322.517 | 645.033 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 653.353 | 670.323 | -320.677 | 641.353 | 3.680 | 3 | 0.298 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 754.327 | 762.812 | -374.164 | 748.327 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 758.024 | 774.993 | -373.012 | 746.024 | 2.303 | 3 | 0.512 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 784.888 | 793.373 | -389.444 | 778.888 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 789.245 | 806.215 | -388.622 | 777.245 | 1.643 | 3 | 0.650 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 697.849 | 706.334 | -345.925 | 691.849 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 701.767 | 718.737 | -344.884 | 689.767 | 2.082 | 3 | 0.556 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 611.025 | 619.510 | -302.512 | 605.025 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 610.538 | 627.508 | -299.269 | 598.538 | 6.487 | 3 | 0.090 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 595.536 | 604.021 | -294.768 | 589.536 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 596.633 | 613.603 | -292.316 | 584.633 | 4.903 | 3 | 0.179 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 616.976 | 625.460 | -305.488 | 610.976 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 608.913 | 625.883 | -298.456 | 596.913 | 14.063 | 3 | 0.003 |
els | null | 3 | 748.171 | 756.656 | -371.085 | 742.171 | |||
els | random | 6 | 743.091 | 760.060 | -365.545 | 731.091 | 11.080 | 3 | 0.011 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 865.660 | 874.145 | -429.830 | 859.660 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 869.751 | 886.721 | -428.875 | 857.751 | 1.910 | 3 | 0.591 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 720.771 | 729.256 | -357.385 | 714.771 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 723.141 | 740.111 | -355.570 | 711.141 | 3.630 | 3 | 0.304 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 664.930 | 673.415 | -329.465 | 658.930 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 668.961 | 685.931 | -328.481 | 656.961 | 1.969 | 3 | 0.579 |
shs | null | 3 | 849.863 | 858.348 | -421.932 | 843.863 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 853.009 | 869.979 | -420.504 | 841.009 | 2.854 | 3 | 0.415 |
esteem | null | 3 | 446.537 | 455.022 | -220.268 | 440.537 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 449.315 | 466.285 | -218.658 | 437.315 | 3.221 | 3 | 0.359 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 640.601 | 649.086 | -317.301 | 634.601 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 645.830 | 662.800 | -316.915 | 633.830 | 0.771 | 3 | 0.856 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 684.448 | 692.932 | -339.224 | 678.448 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 690.155 | 707.125 | -339.077 | 678.155 | 0.293 | 3 | 0.961 |
mlq | null | 3 | 811.066 | 819.551 | -402.533 | 805.066 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 816.535 | 833.505 | -402.268 | 804.535 | 0.531 | 3 | 0.912 |
empower | null | 3 | 665.811 | 674.296 | -329.906 | 659.811 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 669.033 | 686.003 | -328.517 | 657.033 | 2.778 | 3 | 0.427 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 575.795 | 584.280 | -284.898 | 569.795 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 579.901 | 596.870 | -283.950 | 567.901 | 1.895 | 3 | 0.595 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 621.990 | 630.475 | -307.995 | 615.990 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 619.205 | 636.175 | -303.602 | 607.205 | 8.785 | 3 | 0.032 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 646.086 | 654.571 | -320.043 | 640.086 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 644.841 | 661.811 | -316.421 | 632.841 | 7.245 | 3 | 0.064 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 667.673 | 676.158 | -330.836 | 661.673 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 667.367 | 684.337 | -327.683 | 655.367 | 6.306 | 3 | 0.098 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 653.258 | 661.743 | -323.629 | 647.258 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 649.851 | 666.821 | -318.925 | 637.851 | 9.407 | 3 | 0.024 |
sss | null | 3 | 902.846 | 911.331 | -448.423 | 896.846 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 900.187 | 917.157 | -444.094 | 888.187 | 8.659 | 3 | 0.034 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 43 | 3.09 ± 1.19 | 42 | 3.07 ± 1.19 | 0.933 | 0.022 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.27 ± 1.17 | -0.178 | 20 | 3.43 ± 1.17 | -0.364 | 0.665 | -0.164 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 43 | 17.86 ± 2.68 | 42 | 18.17 ± 2.68 | 0.600 | -0.150 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.52 ± 2.58 | 0.166 | 20 | 18.61 ± 2.58 | -0.216 | 0.186 | -0.532 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 43 | 29.63 ± 4.95 | 42 | 30.76 ± 4.95 | 0.294 | -0.428 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.02 ± 4.24 | -0.148 | 20 | 31.54 ± 4.26 | -0.293 | 0.261 | -0.573 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 43 | 12.07 ± 1.99 | 42 | 12.40 ± 1.99 | 0.440 | -0.322 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.40 ± 1.69 | 0.648 | 20 | 12.29 ± 1.70 | 0.111 | 0.098 | -0.859 |
ras_goal | 1st | 43 | 17.49 ± 3.01 | 42 | 17.71 ± 3.01 | 0.730 | -0.126 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 2.67 | 0.511 | 20 | 18.39 ± 2.68 | -0.378 | 0.033 | -1.015 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 43 | 12.98 ± 2.74 | 42 | 13.14 ± 2.74 | 0.781 | -0.125 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.43 ± 2.28 | -0.341 | 20 | 14.19 ± 2.29 | -0.785 | 0.297 | -0.569 |
ras_domination | 1st | 43 | 10.42 ± 2.27 | 42 | 9.43 ± 2.27 | 0.047 | 0.628 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.83 ± 2.12 | 0.375 | 20 | 10.31 ± 2.12 | -0.560 | 0.471 | -0.307 |
symptom | 1st | 43 | 31.95 ± 9.73 | 42 | 28.86 ± 9.73 | 0.146 | 0.824 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.91 ± 7.63 | 0.011 | 20 | 28.25 ± 7.68 | 0.162 | 0.133 | 0.975 |
slof_work | 1st | 43 | 22.53 ± 4.90 | 42 | 23.14 ± 4.90 | 0.569 | -0.304 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.84 ± 3.89 | 0.349 | 20 | 21.94 ± 3.92 | 0.603 | 0.937 | -0.049 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 43 | 25.12 ± 5.85 | 42 | 26.55 ± 5.85 | 0.262 | -0.493 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.17 ± 4.90 | 0.326 | 20 | 26.13 ± 4.92 | 0.145 | 0.210 | -0.674 |
satisfaction | 1st | 43 | 18.86 ± 6.75 | 42 | 22.24 ± 6.75 | 0.023 | -0.886 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.73 ± 5.88 | -0.227 | 20 | 21.73 ± 5.90 | 0.133 | 0.283 | -0.527 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 43 | 10.67 ± 3.73 | 42 | 11.74 ± 3.73 | 0.192 | -0.617 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.17 ± 3.06 | -0.285 | 20 | 11.02 ± 3.08 | 0.415 | 0.883 | 0.083 |
mhc_social | 1st | 43 | 15.14 ± 5.46 | 42 | 14.93 ± 5.46 | 0.859 | 0.073 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.23 ± 4.66 | -0.375 | 20 | 14.36 ± 4.68 | 0.198 | 0.207 | 0.646 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 43 | 21.56 ± 6.16 | 42 | 22.76 ± 6.16 | 0.370 | -0.362 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.26 ± 5.29 | -0.210 | 20 | 21.90 ± 5.31 | 0.259 | 0.833 | 0.106 |
resilisnce | 1st | 43 | 16.28 ± 4.32 | 42 | 17.07 ± 4.32 | 0.400 | -0.333 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.46 ± 3.73 | -0.075 | 20 | 17.76 ± 3.74 | -0.289 | 0.273 | -0.548 |
social_provision | 1st | 43 | 13.26 ± 2.91 | 42 | 14.17 ± 2.91 | 0.152 | -0.506 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.34 ± 2.61 | 0.511 | 20 | 14.07 ± 2.62 | 0.053 | 0.038 | -0.964 |
els_value_living | 1st | 43 | 16.51 ± 2.89 | 42 | 17.76 ± 2.89 | 0.049 | -0.847 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.82 ± 2.44 | -0.211 | 20 | 17.99 ± 2.45 | -0.156 | 0.134 | -0.791 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 43 | 11.53 ± 3.03 | 42 | 13.81 ± 3.03 | 0.001 | -1.451 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.53 ± 2.57 | -0.633 | 20 | 13.80 ± 2.58 | 0.008 | 0.121 | -0.811 |
els | 1st | 43 | 28.05 ± 5.33 | 42 | 31.57 ± 5.33 | 0.003 | -1.419 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.30 ± 4.38 | -0.506 | 20 | 31.80 ± 4.40 | -0.093 | 0.075 | -1.006 |
social_connect | 1st | 43 | 27.84 ± 9.24 | 42 | 25.95 ± 9.24 | 0.350 | 0.509 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.60 ± 7.30 | -0.207 | 20 | 25.48 ± 7.35 | 0.128 | 0.180 | 0.844 |
shs_agency | 1st | 43 | 13.74 ± 4.76 | 42 | 15.43 ± 4.76 | 0.106 | -0.671 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.06 ± 4.06 | -0.126 | 20 | 15.90 ± 4.07 | -0.189 | 0.154 | -0.735 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 43 | 16.02 ± 3.89 | 42 | 17.12 ± 3.89 | 0.197 | -0.565 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.42 ± 3.26 | -0.203 | 20 | 16.88 ± 3.27 | 0.125 | 0.657 | -0.237 |
shs | 1st | 43 | 29.77 ± 8.13 | 42 | 32.55 ± 8.13 | 0.118 | -0.689 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.47 ± 6.81 | -0.175 | 20 | 32.80 ± 6.84 | -0.062 | 0.283 | -0.576 |
esteem | 1st | 43 | 12.93 ± 1.43 | 42 | 12.45 ± 1.43 | 0.126 | 0.388 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.04 ± 1.42 | -0.086 | 20 | 12.75 ± 1.42 | -0.244 | 0.530 | 0.230 |
mlq_search | 1st | 43 | 14.86 ± 3.30 | 42 | 15.17 ± 3.30 | 0.670 | -0.141 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.46 ± 3.03 | 0.185 | 20 | 15.02 ± 3.03 | 0.066 | 0.556 | -0.260 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 43 | 13.33 ± 4.03 | 42 | 13.76 ± 4.03 | 0.619 | -0.180 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.27 ± 3.58 | 0.021 | 20 | 13.67 ± 3.59 | 0.037 | 0.726 | -0.165 |
mlq | 1st | 43 | 28.19 ± 6.63 | 42 | 28.93 ± 6.63 | 0.607 | -0.180 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.74 ± 5.96 | 0.109 | 20 | 28.69 ± 5.97 | 0.058 | 0.614 | -0.231 |
empower | 1st | 43 | 18.95 ± 3.95 | 42 | 20.00 ± 3.95 | 0.225 | -0.562 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.73 ± 3.26 | 0.120 | 20 | 19.35 ± 3.27 | 0.349 | 0.549 | -0.333 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 43 | 14.42 ± 2.47 | 42 | 15.14 ± 2.47 | 0.179 | -0.393 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.54 ± 2.36 | -0.067 | 20 | 14.90 ± 2.36 | 0.131 | 0.629 | -0.196 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 43 | 12.42 ± 3.08 | 42 | 10.48 ± 3.08 | 0.004 | 1.107 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.83 ± 2.69 | 0.334 | 20 | 10.58 ± 2.70 | -0.061 | 0.145 | 0.712 |
sss_affective | 1st | 43 | 10.56 ± 3.62 | 42 | 9.50 ± 3.62 | 0.182 | 0.643 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.75 ± 2.96 | -0.118 | 20 | 8.50 ± 2.97 | 0.609 | 0.018 | 1.369 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 43 | 10.40 ± 3.79 | 42 | 8.93 ± 3.79 | 0.078 | 0.722 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.11 ± 3.25 | 0.140 | 20 | 8.08 ± 3.26 | 0.419 | 0.050 | 1.001 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 43 | 8.65 ± 3.72 | 42 | 7.81 ± 3.72 | 0.300 | 0.509 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.64 ± 3.02 | -0.601 | 20 | 6.89 ± 3.04 | 0.558 | 0.005 | 1.668 |
sss | 1st | 43 | 29.60 ± 10.35 | 42 | 26.24 ± 10.35 | 0.137 | 0.788 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.60 ± 8.24 | -0.234 | 20 | 23.50 ± 8.29 | 0.642 | 0.007 | 1.665 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(113.79) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.49)
2st
t(118.32) = 0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(109.48) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.46)
2st
t(117.54) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.70)
ras_confidence
1st
t(95.35) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.27)
2st
t(120.43) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.14 to 4.18)
ras_willingness
1st
t(94.71) = 0.78, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)
2st
t(120.65) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.96)
ras_goal
1st
t(98.64) = 0.35, p = 0.730, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.52)
2st
t(119.16) = 2.15, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.49)
ras_reliance
1st
t(92.93) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.35)
2st
t(120.99) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.19)
ras_domination
1st
t(104.92) = -2.01, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-1.97 to -0.01)
2st
t(117.55) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.81)
symptom
1st
t(89.08) = -1.47, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.10)
2st
t(118.44) = -1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-8.45 to 1.13)
slof_work
1st
t(89.85) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.72)
2st
t(119.57) = 0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.54)
slof_relationship
1st
t(93.50) = 1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.95)
2st
t(120.94) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.03)
satisfaction
1st
t(96.90) = 2.31, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.47 to 6.29)
2st
t(119.84) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.68 to 5.70)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(91.96) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.67)
2st
t(120.93) = -0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.06 to 1.78)
mhc_social
1st
t(95.18) = -0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.14)
2st
t(120.49) = -1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-4.80 to 1.05)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(95.57) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.86)
2st
t(120.35) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.96)
resilisnce
1st
t(96.15) = 0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.65)
2st
t(120.14) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.64)
social_provision
1st
t(99.99) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.16)
2st
t(118.67) = 2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.10 to 3.37)
els_value_living
1st
t(94.12) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.50)
2st
t(120.81) = 1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.70)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(94.48) = 3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (0.97 to 3.58)
2st
t(120.71) = 1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.88)
els
1st
t(92.12) = 3.05, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.42, 95% CI (1.23 to 5.82)
2st
t(120.96) = 1.80, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.25 to 5.25)
social_connect
1st
t(89.58) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-5.87 to 2.10)
2st
t(119.22) = -1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-7.71 to 1.46)
shs_agency
1st
t(94.97) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.73)
2st
t(120.56) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.70 to 4.39)
shs_pathway
1st
t(93.58) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.77)
2st
t(120.92) = 0.44, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.50)
shs
1st
t(93.48) = 1.58, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.72 to 6.28)
2st
t(120.94) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.95 to 6.59)
esteem
1st
t(116.18) = -1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.14)
2st
t(119.04) = -0.63, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.61)
mlq_search
1st
t(102.53) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.73)
2st
t(117.95) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.46)
mlq_presence
1st
t(98.99) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.17)
2st
t(119.03) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 2.65)
mlq
1st
t(100.22) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.59)
2st
t(118.59) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.78 to 4.69)
empower
1st
t(92.33) = 1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.75)
2st
t(120.98) = 0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.67)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(108.46) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.79)
2st
t(117.46) = 0.48, p = 0.629, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.84)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(97.23) = -2.91, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.62)
2st
t(119.71) = -1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.44)
sss_affective
1st
t(91.63) = -1.35, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.50)
2st
t(120.84) = -2.40, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.37, 95% CI (-4.11 to -0.40)
sss_behavior
1st
t(95.40) = -1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.10 to 0.17)
2st
t(120.42) = -1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-4.07 to 0.00)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(91.22) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.45 to 0.76)
2st
t(120.68) = -2.88, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.67, 95% CI (-4.65 to -0.86)
sss
1st
t(90.01) = -1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.83 to 1.09)
2st
t(119.76) = -2.72, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 1.66, 95% CI (-12.28 to -1.93)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(58.46) = 1.26, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(54.52) = 0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.64)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(44.83) = 0.96, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.41)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(44.46) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.53)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(46.84) = 1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.77)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(43.42) = 2.55, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.87)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(51.02) = 1.88, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.83)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(41.26) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.97 to 1.75)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(41.68) = -1.94, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.05)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(43.75) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.38)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(45.76) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.84 to 1.83)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(42.87) = -1.34, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(44.73) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.36 to 1.21)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(44.97) = -0.85, p = 0.803, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.19)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(45.31) = 0.95, p = 0.696, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.15)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(47.70) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.00)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(44.11) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.14)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(44.33) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.96)
els
1st vs 2st
t(42.96) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.77)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(41.54) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.79 to 1.85)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(44.61) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.02)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(43.80) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.96)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(43.74) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.75)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(61.15) = 0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.01)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(49.36) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.17)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(47.06) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.39)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(47.84) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.74 to 2.26)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(43.08) = -1.13, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(53.69) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.85)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(45.97) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.18)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(42.68) = -1.97, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(44.87) = -1.37, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.10 to 0.40)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(42.45) = -1.81, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.11)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(41.78) = -2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.41 to -0.07)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(58.99) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(54.94) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.86)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(44.99) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.02)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(44.61) = -2.12, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.03)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(47.05) = -1.69, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.18)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(43.55) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(51.35) = -1.26, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.35)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(41.34) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.31)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(41.77) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(43.88) = -1.06, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.75 to 0.85)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(45.95) = 0.75, p = 0.919, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.47 to 3.20)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(42.98) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.56)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(44.89) = 1.23, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.88)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(45.13) = 0.69, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.74)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(45.49) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(47.93) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.17)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(44.25) = 0.69, p = 0.988, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(44.47) = 2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.96)
els
1st vs 2st
t(43.07) = 1.64, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.80)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(41.62) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.08)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(44.77) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.86)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(43.93) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.59)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(43.87) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.21)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(61.76) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.81)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(49.64) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.91)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(47.27) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.42)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(48.08) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(43.20) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.93)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(54.09) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.21)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(46.16) = -1.10, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.49)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(42.79) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.22)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(45.03) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.96)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(42.55) = 1.94, p = 0.117, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.02)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(41.86) = 0.75, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.67 to 3.67)
Plot
